5 axis IBIS coming to next Canon EOS R series camera [CR2]

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,529
755
But... We were told numerous times after EOS R announcement that IBIS is not necessary?
It isn't really necessary, but if it sells cameras, it will be offered. My issue with IS is that I have to half press the shutter and wait for IS to stabilize the first image. Subsequent images are fine since its already running. I wonder if IBIS has a similar 1-2 second delay.

Canon said that they had too many issues with IBIS to put it in the EOS R, but that it was being considered for a subsequent release. Teardowns of the R revealed that there is a space in the design of the for a IBIS sensor, so it is obviously in the future plans.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
It isn't really necessary, but if it sells cameras, it will be offered. My issue with IS is that I have to half press the shutter and wait for IS to stabilize the first image. Subsequent images are fine since its already running. I wonder if IBIS has a similar 1-2 second delay.

Canon said that they had too many issues with IBIS to put it in the EOS R, but that it was being considered for a subsequent release. Teardowns of the R revealed that there is a space in the design of the for a IBIS sensor, so it is obviously in the future plans.
I can’t imagine they would always have it running; that would be a major power drain. Like IS, I suspect it will be engaged at the same time as the AF system is, or by the shutter release mechanism.
 

bitm2007

EOS RP
May 20, 2013
366
7
I like the way Canon seems to go. Of course the sensors leave most to be wished for to me who shoots stills; but IBIS helps a ton for high-quality lenses that do not have lens IS (like Zeiss or Canon's 24-70).
True but a lighter (or maybe faster) RF version of the Canon's 24-70 f2.8 with IS will probably be around by the time a IBIS EOS R is released, leaving those with non IS Canon 24-70's still lagging behind on the image stabilisation front.
 

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
It isn't really necessary, but if it sells cameras, it will be offered. My issue with IS is that I have to half press the shutter and wait for IS to stabilize the first image. Subsequent images are fine since its already running. I wonder if IBIS has a similar 1-2 second delay.

Canon said that they had too many issues with IBIS to put it in the EOS R, but that it was being considered for a subsequent release. Teardowns of the R revealed that there is a space in the design of the for a IBIS sensor, so it is obviously in the future plans.
I agree - not necessary for the vast majority (just my guess) of photographers. Most (like me) will have or will buy new lenses with IS. But for low light shooters with older lenses it will be a plus.

I do have to wonder, however, how much benefit FF IBIS will be. A number of Sony users have commented how poor it is with video - and it seems unlikely that it will be as effective as it is on M4/3rds cameras such as Olympus, as that format has a much smaller sensor. Also wonder how good it will be in the long run. Won't all that movement increase the likelihood that the sensor will get out of alignment after a number of years? For those who buy a new camera every two years, it may not be something that is thought about, but for those of us who will buy the R and keep it for 6-8 years (or more) I have to wonder....
 
Last edited:

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,058
329
Vancouver, BC
It isn't really necessary, but if it sells cameras, it will be offered. My issue with IS is that I have to half press the shutter and wait for IS to stabilize the first image. Subsequent images are fine since its already running. I wonder if IBIS has a similar 1-2 second delay.

Canon said that they had too many issues with IBIS to put it in the EOS R, but that it was being considered for a subsequent release. Teardowns of the R revealed that there is a space in the design of the for a IBIS sensor, so it is obviously in the future plans.
I also dont like fighting IS. One reason I'm a big fan of Mode 3!
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,058
329
Vancouver, BC
But... We were told numerous times after EOS R announcement that IBIS is not necessary?
It certainly wouldn't be a primary reason for me to pick one body over another, because I still want in lens IS on all the lenses I want IS in. On the other hand, as I have said before, if there aren't any downsides, why not -- and this is just another step towards a maturing market where all products are same-y for features and where usability, non top-line specs, pricing and marketing ultimately wins out. Available first and third party lenses is pretty important in that formula, I think.

Incidentally, one of the criticisms I have of the Sony system is that there are not very many great cheap lenses. One of the best things about the Canon system is the availability of very good lenses that aren't top-tier, ultra-professional quality, but way better than I need for my purposes at a price that I'm ok with. I am not cheap when it comes to lenses, but neither do I want to spend $1500+ on lenses I don't use frequently.
 
Last edited:

Josh Leavitt

EOS T7i
Aug 19, 2018
92
104
It certainly wouldn't be a primary reason for me to pick one body over another, because I still want in lens IS on all the lenses I want IS in. On the other hand, as I have said before, if there aren't any downsides, why not -- and this is just another step towards a maturing market where all products are same-y for features and where usability, non top-line specs, pricing and marketing ultimately wins out. Available first and third party lenses is pretty important in that formula, I think.

Incidentally, one of the criticisms I have of the Sony system is that there are not very many great cheap lenses. One of the best things about the Canon system is the availability of very good lenses that aren't top-tier, ultra-professional quality, but way better than I need for my purposes at a price that I'm ok with. I am not cheap when it comes to lenses, but neither do I want to spend $1500+ on lenses I don't use frequently.
I feel the same way. I have a lot nice glass (albeit not professional-level) for the EF mount that I would love to adapt to an RF body and get the benefit of image stabilization. Non-OIS lenses like the 35mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and even my old 200mm f/2.8L lens are all good optical performers and didn't cost a fortune. I don't doubt for a second I'll be able to get better results out of those if I can trade a couple stops of shutter speed for ISO with the benefit of IBIS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 12, 2016
533
192
Incidentally, one of the criticisms I have of the Sony system is that there are not very many great cheap lenses. One of the best things about the Canon system is the availability of very good lenses that aren't top-tier, ultra-professional quality, but way better than I need for my purposes at a price that I'm ok with. I am not cheap when it comes to lenses, but neither do I want to spend $1500+ on lenses I don't use frequently.
It's not really surprising considering the EF system has been around forever. There are a bunch of old Canon lenses that Canon has already recouped the R&D costs on, and they have undergone a ton of price reductions as a result. The E mount system hasn't had that time for lenses to get cheaper over the years. Not to mention, they've been furiously trying to catch up with Canon's best lenses to tempt people to change to Sony as opposed to gradually releasing lenses at all price points over many years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,600
697
Southeastern USA
Not just 50mm but also that 28-70mm lens or for anyone who has a good selection of old MF glass.
Even my 24-70mm f/2.8!!!

BUT, let us just HOPE that Canon doesn't do something infuriating, such as only enabling IBIS when an RF lens is attached. Not likely, but, a truly effective IBIS would breathe new life into so many old EF lenses that sales and marketing might have hissy fits.
 
Last edited:

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
1,061
559
Turku, Finland
Indeed "We don't do IBIS because in-lens IS is far superior" said the company while launching two high-end lenses without IS.
In actuality, Canon has gone on record in the post-launch interviews that they consider each system to have their advantages, and that the lack of IBIS in the R has more to do with engineering/price point constraints with regard to that particular body (yes, say the C word, I double dare you) than any fundamental philosophical objection to sensor-based stabilization.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mikehit
Jul 12, 2013
248
78
I wonder if in-body stabilization is coming to the M family as well...I have resisted purchasing the EF-M 32mm f1.4 because it does not have IS--I have come to depend on IS for low-light images, especially for vacation photos.
 

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
269
238
Madison, WI
One step closer but irrelevant if pricing of the EOS R stays the same. Based on the specs the EOS R is more of a $1600 camera.
I think half the criticism out there would be gone if this camera body came in a 100 to 200 less than the A7III, even if the kit lens still costs the same as it does currently. I think most people would be fine with it as an upgraded RF mount 6dMkII with some cool new features. One of the most legit criticism about the system is that the camera itself is overpriced for what it is. If it didn't have the features the competition had, but was slightly cheaper, I suspect it would be selling many more right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan and 4fun
Dec 6, 2018
113
156
But... We were told numerous times after EOS R announcement that IBIS is not necessary?
From what vat of logic should we conclude something is needed just because its included or not? My truck and van's doors can auto-lock, but it's not needed, just included. For my needs, I care little at all about IBIS. But I'm okay with Canon adding the feature as long as it does not compromise other features I use and want. If it does not advance heat, wear or extra power drain complications, I will buy it, assuming the feature does not add excruciating price increase.

One step closer but irrelevant if pricing of the EOS R stays the same. Based on the specs the EOS R is more of a $1600 camera.
The EOS R is far closer to the 5D mk iv than a 6D, and even includes a couple features every Sony body lacks. By a more comprehensive comparison, the EOS R fits a $2300 camera. Compared to the 5DS I bought new, I even consider $2400 a reasonable value for the EOS R
 
Last edited:

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,152
387
That's easy... Panasonic and Olympus both rate their respective dual IS/sync IS systems at 6.5 stops. Olympus body expected in Jan. 2019 is rumored at 7.5 stops. Beyond that Olympus has (jokingly) implied that rotation of the earth must be taken into consideration. Still doesn't correct subject blur though.
And it doesn't mean much with a fast shutter or a tripod either. So how many photographs of immobile objects are your going to take without using a tripod and using a slow shutter and a lens that doesn't have IS?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron D

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,152
387
I think half the criticism out there would be gone if this camera body came in a 100 to 200 less than the A7III, even if the kit lens still costs the same as it does currently. I think most people would be fine with it as an upgraded RF mount 6dMkII with some cool new features. One of the most legit criticism about the system is that the camera itself is overpriced for what it is. If it didn't have the features the competition had, but was slightly cheaper, I suspect it would be selling many more right now.
Some people are whining and some people are buying. Life goes on.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
In actuality, Canon has gone on record in the post-launch interviews that they consider each system to have their advantages, and that the lack of IBIS in the R has more to do with engineering/price point constraints with regard to that particular body (yes, say the C word, I double dare you) than any fundamental philosophical objection to sensor-based stabilization.

That sounds like spin. The camera certainly has hardware requirements. If IBIS were a requirement, and this body is a contraindication to it (is that the c word?), the body would have been designed differently. I don’t believe IBIS was a requirement, for whatever reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan

melgross

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 2, 2016
414
219
That sounds like spin. The camera certainly has hardware requirements. If IBIS were a requirement, and this body is a contraindication to it (is that the c word?), the body would have been designed differently. I don’t believe IBIS was a requirement, for whatever reason.
No, he’s right. That’s pretty much what I’ve read in interviews with Canon executives. This sensor, is not ready for it, and they didn’t think it would work as well as it should.

I’ve found, over the years, that in lens IS better than in camera. For whatever reason, the i ,lens stabilization seems smoother. The in camera seems more jittery. Hard to explain, but you can see the difference in big enlargements, or on a good monitor.